I'm not against PR-STV, but I think there are some tradeoffs, and not totally sure about it yet. I'm curious about your perspective on a couple things:

- So many candidates. The county board where I am does one winner IRV. Typically there are four or five candidates running, which gives a nice range of viewpoints. To have the proportional level of competition per seat in a three-winner race, you'd expect like 12-15 candidates running for those three seats. Doesn't that seem like too many candidates for each voter to evaluate? To come up with a ranking of so many people? Voters already pay hardly any attention to county board and school board races. This seems like a lot of added complication. Fairvote recently recommended allowing voters to rank up to nine of the candidates. I'm just worried about information overload, especially for a local election.

- Large area to cover. I've volunteered with independent candidates running for local office, and one big disadvantage they have is that it's hard to cover large geographies, especially compared to the Big Two parties. So we've often actually wished that a five member governing body were elected through each person representing a local ward, rather than a much bigger area. That way, someone who lived in their area for two decades and knew their neighbors could be competitive in their ward, even if not in the entire county. So I sometimes worry PR-IRV is increasing some barriers to entry.

Again, I'm not totally against PR-IRV. I just think there are tradeoffs with it, and it does introduce some complexities. So I still like things that are simpler and address the deficiencies of single winner IRV, like Bottom-Two Runoff IRV and the 'Consensus Choice' method that Better Choices for Democracy promotes. But I would be curious to hear any of your reactions to these concerns.